IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL st ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2023 MISC. PETITION No. 3399 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

SHIVCHARAN @ POORAN SINGH S/O LUBHANSINGH LILHARE, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R / O DHIMARI TEHSIL AND DISTRICT GONDIYA MAHARASTRA (MAHARASHTRA)

.....PETITIONER (BY SHRI S.K JAIN- ADVOCATE)

AND

1. GANESHIBAI W/O NAKULPRASAD, AGED ABOUT

68 YEARS, OCCUPATION: CASTE LODHI R/O GRAMSAVRI TEHSIL KHERILANJI DISTRICT BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

2. PUSHPENDRA S/O LATE NAKULPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JATI LODHI R/O GRAM SAVRI TEHSIL KHAIRLANJI JILA BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. BHUMESHWARI S/O LATE NAKULPRASAD, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JATI LODHI R/O GRAM SAVRI TEHSIL KHAIRLANJI JILA BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. SUDHIR S/O LATE NAKULPRASAD, AGED ABOUT

42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JATI LODHI R/O GRAM SAVRI TEHSIL KHAIRLANJI JILA BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. RUSTAM S/O LATE NAKUL PRASAD, AGED ABOUT

38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JATI LODHI R/O GRAM SAVRI TEHSIL KHAIRLANJI JILA BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This misc. petition has been preferred by petitioner - Shivcharan @

Pooran Singh challenging the order dated 25.05.2023, passed by Additional Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur in Case No.0320/Appeal/2020-21 (Ganeshi and Others vs. State) whereby petitioner's application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC for his impleadment in the pending second appeal, has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of his application by the Court(s) below.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before the Tahsildar as well as before SDO, he appeared and filed objections in the mutation proceedings initiated by Nakul Prasad (Now Dead through LRs Ganeshi Bai and others) on the basis of Will dated 15.03.1994 allegedly executed by Bhumiswami - Jharo Bai and upon consideration of the contentions of the rival parties, learned Tahsildar vide its order dated 29.09.2018 (Annexure.P/2) dismissed the application for mutation of the respondents 1-5 and upon challenge in appeal, order dated 29.09.2018 passed by Tahsildar was affirmed by SDO vide its order dated 26.08.2020 (Annexure.P/3) holding that both the parties are claiming rights in the suit property on the basis of Will(s) and the dispute regarding genuineness of the Will cannot be decided by the revenue Court for want of jurisdiction.

3 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order passed by the SDO the respondent 1-5 have preferred second appeal, in which the petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC with the submission that the order passed by the SDO is not liable to be interfered with Signature Not Verified Signed by: SATTYENDAR and if the respondents have any grievances, they can go before the civil Court, but the application has wrongly been dismissed and the petitioner is affecting party and was heard before Courts below.

4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

5. From bare perusal of the orders passed by Tahsildar and SDO, it is clear that the petitioner and respondents 1-5 both are claiming rights on the basis of Will(s) in respect of the suit property held by Bhumiswami deceased Jharo Bai. As has been held by Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Singh vs. State of M.P. and others (2021)10 SCALE 413 (Para 7), the revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the question of genuineness of the Will, therefore, primafacie there is no illegality in the order dated 26.08.2020 passed by the SDO, which is under challenge before Additional Commissioner. Relevant para of decision in the case of Jitendra Singh (supra) is as under:-

"7. In view of the above settled proposition of law laid down by this Court, it cannot be said that the High Court has committed any error in setting aside the order pas